Tom Friedman of the New York Times interviewed President Obama the other day. The President revealed his views on why his program is not succeeding, laying the blame on those who oppose him.
“We need to revamp our education system, K-12 in particular. You look at what Finland’s doing with its kids, and you look at what we’re doing with our kids, and you say, ‘we’re falling short.’ All these things are doable. Our fiscal position, actually, now is such—you know, the deficit’s been cut by more than half—where we’re in a position to make some smart investments that have huge payoffs, that historically have not been controversial, historically have garnered bipartisan support. But because of this maximalist ideological position, we’ve been blocked. I have to say here, I’ve been speaking in generalities, and trying not to be too political, but that ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent right now in the Republican Party than the Democrats. Democrats have problems, but overall if you look at the Democratic consensus, it’s a pretty commonsense, mainstream consensus. It’s not a lot of wacky ideological nonsense, the way it is generally fact-based and reason-based. We’re not denying science, we’re not denying climate change, we’re not pretending that somehow having a whole bunch of uninsured people is the American way. We’re doing things that are pretty sensible. I’m optimistic that these things go in cycles, and that the Republican Party will eventually free itself from the grip of this kind of extremist ideology. But it’s necessary to happen soon.”
Apart from the asides about the virtues of Finnish education (in mono-cultural, all-white Finland), the thrust of Obama’s considered view is that his opposition is “wacky ideological nonsense”, of which “climate change denial” is a prime example.
The President may not be entirely without some reason in calling tea-partiers “maximalist” in their opposition. They take views on some matters which would dismay most Canadian conservatives. But denigrating the Tea Party wing of the Republicans is all a distraction from what – I believe – is a long term Democratic tendency: they want a non-white America. The average Tea Party Republican is quite aware of this, indeed I think everyone knows that this is the game being played, and while changing the demographics of the country is never discussed in polite circles, it constitutes what I call the “end-of-the-dock” conversations between trusted friends in the United States.
They may not say so directly, they may not even admit it to themselves; they may not realize all the consequences, but they surely recognize that 20% fewer white people voted for Obama than for Romney, and that the electoral map can be changed, possibly permanently, by allowing waves of immigrants from Central America, who vote Democratic.
Even liberal Tom Friedman refers to “the President’s planned executive amnesty for millions more illegal aliens.”
Thus the Alabama congressman who said the democrats are waging a war on white people, by claiming “they hate everyone else”, touched a nerve.
Here is what he said:
“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else,” he said during an interview Monday with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “It’s part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”
Brooks was responding to comments made by National Journal’s Ron Fournier, who told Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday that “the fastest growing voting bloc in this country thinks the Republican Party hates them. This party, your party, cannot be the party of the future beyond November if you’re seen as the party of white people.”
In short, go with the Hispanic (Mestizo-Amerindian) wave or the Republican party is finished. The message is just as blunt from the Left, only its message is the standard discourse. Deviation from it is suspect. The Republican Congressman said:
“It doesn’t make any difference if you’re a white American, a black American, a Hispanic American, an Asian American or if you’re a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs,” he said.
“Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue,” he added. “If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big.”
As is usual when an important truth is said in public, for the first time, it will seem extreme, out of place, exaggerated, and disproportionate.
The issue is not that these central American immigrants are criminal, or stupid. They are industrious and only want a chance to succeed. Fair enough. The record shows however, that the culture of Central American people is not such as will sustain a high-technology, highly achieving society, or that they can attain the standard of living that most whites enjoy. This is an observed outcome: by importing these waves of Central Americans, the States is not importing waves of Ashkenazi Jews, Germans, Czechs, factory builders, capitalists, machine operators and inventors, and other high-attaining classes of people.
Putting it bluntly, does the United States need or want a new servant class? My Californian friends have daily gardeners and cleaning ladies, as a totally normal part of moderately well-off living. Should we have them here in Canada or in the northern United States? Is this what we want, a new servant class? And even if we do not want it, at current rates of Hispanic immigration and reproduction, we are going to get it.
The American working class is being hurt by falling wages and lost jobs. Working class carpentry jobs for the indigenous white population are disappearing in places like Virginia and Ohio, not just California and Nevada. Whites and blacks are being priced out by Central Americans who are prepared to live in dormitories. Is this good for the United States?
The real question, though, is less how bad a problem immigration-driven population growth will become but the “opportunity cost” of the forgone America—that less crowded and better educated country that we won’t be leaving to our children due to our immigration policies.
Kotkin, who leans mildly in a libertarian direction, can’t really explain why his doubly denser America is preferable. He simply assumes that his readers won’t be so uncool as to notice that illegal immigration tends to create a vast hereditary proletariat. That’s not the worst fate imaginable for America, but if the more productive will be required to subsidize the education, the policing, and now the healthcare of the less productive (which, one way or another, we shall), why would we want to continue to import millions of unskilled and highly fertile foreigners? In California in 2005, foreign-born Latinas were giving birth at the rate of 3.7 babies per lifetime (almost the same total fertility as Haiti) versus 2.2 for American-born Latinas and 1.4 for American-born Asians. Ouch.
Although Kotkin is enthusiastic about the quantity of these upcoming residents, he’s reticent about their average quality. After a generation in Los Angeles, he knows what East Coast pundits don’t yet grasp: the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are not merging into the educated middle class. Yet he can’t come out and admit that either. Whenever Kotkin appears finally ready to grapple with this central question about America’s future, he wanders off topic to rave about the technological innovativeness of legal immigrants in Silicon Valley or wax nostalgic about the rise of Ellis Island arrivals.
” A vast hereditary proletariat.” Is this what we want? Whether we want it or not, this is what we are getting, courtesy of Obama and the Democrats, and, let there be no mistake, of the business-owning class of the United States, which is mostly Republican.
And this, I think, is the main reason why the Tea Partiers are so driven to oppose compromise. They want a freer, more spacious, and richer America, and they are willing to live without servants if that is what it takes to have it. Of course, to the average leftist, this makes them racist, but that is not their motivation They remember a better America, and want to preserve it against the wishes of the American ruling class.